Justia Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI). In this second petition for discretionary review filed by defendant, the court determined that the court of appeals erred by holding that a driver must signal a lane change when his lane merged with another lane. The court held that the arresting officer failed to articulate specific facts that supported a reasonable suspicion that defendant had violated Tex. Transp. Code 545.104(a). Therefore, the court held that there was no reasonable suspicion for the initial stop and that the trial court erred by failing to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of the stop. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment and remanded. View "Mahaffey v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with indecent exposure, enhanced with a prior conviction for the same offense. A conflict existed between the trial court's oral denial of a motion to quash defendant's information and its subsequent written order granting the same motion. The state asked the court to reverse the judgment of the court of appeals, which held that the trial court lost jurisdiction to accept defendant's guilty plea after it signed the order granting his motion to quash. The court granted the State's petition for discretionary review and vacated the judgment because the plain language of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.4 required the court of appeals to abate the case. View "Henery v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of ten counts of possession of child pornography. The ten counts were for ten images of unknown children discovered in the "free space" of defendant's computer. In this petition for discretionary review, the State contended that the court of appeals erred in finding the evidence insufficient to support convictions against defendant. The court concluded that the majority misapplied the standard of review for sufficiency by focusing on the possible alternative explanations, rather than determining whether the jury's inference was reasonable based upon the cumulative force of all the evidence when considered in the light most favorable to the verdict. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered a judgment affirming the trial court. View "West v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of murder and the court granted defendant's petition for discretionary review on one ground: whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Fifth Amendment right against compelled incrimination did not apply to pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence used as substantive evidence of guilt in cases in which a defendant did not testify. The court held that such silence was admissible and affirmed the judgment, upholding the conviction. View "Salinas v. State" on Justia Law

Applicant was convicted of felony murder and injury to a child where the child chocked on a wad of paper towels while applicant was babysitting him. Applicant subsequently filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus and the habeas judge recommended that the court grant applicant a new trial. Although the court agreed with some of the habeas judge's factual findings, the court did not adopt them all because some of them were not supported by the trial and habeas records. As the ultimate factfinder, the court reviewed all of the evidence and found that applicant has failed to show that she was entitled to a new trial and therefore, the court denied relief. View "Ex Parte Jimenez" on Justia Law

Applicant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. Applicant filed this habeas corpus application in 2006, alleging actual innocence and mental retardation. After the judge of the convicting court heard evidence and found that applicant had not proved his actual innocence but had proved his mental retardation, the court filed and set the case to review the findings. The court shall remand the case to the convicting court for the judge to consider the factors the court established in Ex parte Briseno. View "Ex Parte Sosa" on Justia Law

Applicant was convicted of evading arrest and was found guilty of a state-jail felony that was enhanced to a second-degree felony. Applicant argued that his state-jail conviction was void because the offense alleged was committed before the effective date of the statute under which he was tried, convicted, and sentenced. The court held that, because the date of applicant's prior conviction was not an element of the offense, applicant was not entitled to relief and his request for writ of habeas corpus was denied. View "Ex Parte Carner" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. On direct appeal, the court considered issues related to the murder instruction; expert testimony; the punishment charge; future dangerousness; pre-trial motion to preclude the death penalty; and constitutional challenges to Texas's death penalty statute. The court affirmed the judgment of guilt but reversed defendant's sentence and remanded the case to the trial court for a new punishment hearing. View "Olsen v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with possessing cocaine in an amount less than one gram. A laboratory report was admitted into evidence, but the analyst who conducted the test and prepared the report did not testify. The court held that defendant's trial counsel had not been shown to have performed deficiently in failing to object to the report on Confrontation Clause grounds when the record did not contain counsel's reasons for failing to object and did not establish whether the analyst could or would have testified if an objection had been lodged. View "Menefield v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two counts of assault on a public servant. The court of appeals subsequently held that his trial proceedings, which were convened at the prison-chapel courtroom, were not closed to the public, that a violation of the Establishment Clause was not structural error, and that the violation of the Establishment Clause in his case was harmless. The court held that defendant showed that his trial was closed to the public, and because that closure was not justified, the court reversed the judgments of the court of appeals and trial court, remanding for a new trial. View "Lilly v. State" on Justia Law